Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 581 F.3d 63 - Caiozzo v. Koreman

Caiozzo v. Koreman’s Empirical Analysis

581 F.3d 63 · 2009

Citation profile

98
cited by 98 later decisions
August 2024
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Cash v. County of Erie (2011), Nielsen v. Rabin (2014)

10 federal appellate · 5 district ·

920200920102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Farmer v. Brennan · Malinski v. People of State of New York · Terry v. Ashcroft · Weyant v. Okst · John Andrew Cuoco v. Kenneth Moritsugu

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he standard for deliberate indifference is the same under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it is under the Eighth Amendment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “To suppose that 'due process of law' meant one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth is too frivolous to require elaborate rejection.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “a prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.